God Endowed Humans with Free Will?

[attofishpi]

You are the ignorant stupid bastard idiot.

I have been mentioning the term 'omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresence, omnibenevolent' in relation to the Christian God and 99% Christians [in my experience] has
NEVER asked for references from the Bible because it is common knowledge implied in the Bible.
That was why I was surprised and lost when you asked for 'sources'.

..that's be.cause U have been dealing with stupid ***ts that don't belong within the realms of PHILOSOPHY.

My main point is
1. most theists will claim [directly or necessarily] their supposed God is omnipotent with omni-benevolence and whatever omni- necessary.
2. But God-created-humans did commit real evil and violence in reality.
3. 1 and 2 is a contradiction.
4. Therefore the supposed God does not exist.

C NOW. I have a problem with point 1. I know that God is not OMNI-benevolent - NOT just from 23 years of direct experience, but more importantly, in total contradiction to your source - (that U refuse to cite) - the bible - God states 'HE' will burn wo/man forever IF they don't (woteva)...

So.

What is "OMNI-benevolent" in God there? ...ergo, your ridiculous assumption at point 4. (is fucked)

You are so ignorant and also inefficient.
It took me 10 seconds to get this;

No, actually since your last post, whilst I waited 4 U to address ME (UNLESS you are a really really slow at the keyboard) took you 15 MINS.

• 100 Bible Verses about Omnibenevolence - OpenBible.info
  https://www.openbible.info/topics/omnibenevolence

There are many other Christian sites which support the above point re their God is omnibenevolent.

U do under_stand philosophy right? - U keep going on that U R rational etc etc..

SO.

Rather than pointing me to STUPID "CHRISTIAN" C**NTS and ALL their PIGSHIT - THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CHRIST STATED.

...er DO me a favour - and CITE your source.

If your God is not omnibenevolent, then your God is omni-evil??
or If your God is totally indifferent to benevolence, then such a God is a useless God to theists, i.e. having the possibility of cruelty and evil and be condemned.

TRULY it makes me larf when people state 'YOUR' God. U simple fuk.


ITS AS SIMPLE AS THIS:- HOW CAN U STATE GOD IS OMNIBENEVOLENT WHEN HE WILL BURN U IN HELL FOREVER?

..just to make the point clear.

[Veritas Aequitas]

..that's be.cause U have been dealing with stupid ***ts that don't belong within the realms of PHILOSOPHY.




C NOW. I have a problem with point 1. I know that God is not OMNI-benevolent - NOT just from 23 years of direct experience, but more importantly, in total contradiction to your source - (that U refuse to cite) - the bible - God states 'HE' will burn wo/man forever IF they don't (woteva)...

So.

What is "OMNI-benevolent" in God there? ...ergo, your ridiculous assumption at point 4. (is fucked)

You are so ignorant and also inefficient.
It took me 10 seconds to get this;

No, actually since your last post, whilst I waited 4 U to address ME (UNLESS you are a really really slow at the keyboard) took you 15 MINS.

• 100 Bible Verses about Omnibenevolence - OpenBible.info
  https://www.openbible.info/topics/omnibenevolence

There are many other Christian sites which support the above point re their God is omnibenevolent.

U do under_stand philosophy right? - U keep going on that U R rational etc etc..

SO.

Rather than pointing me to STUPID "CHRISTIAN" C**NTS and ALL their PIGSHIT - THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CHRIST STATED.

...er DO me a favour - and CITE your source.

If your God is not omnibenevolent, then your God is omni-evil??
or If your God is totally indifferent to benevolence, then such a God is a useless God to theists, i.e. having the possibility of cruelty and evil and be condemned.

TRULY it makes me larf when people state 'YOUR' God. U simple fuk.


ITS AS SIMPLE AS THIS:- HOW CAN U STATE GOD IS OMNIBENEVOLENT WHEN HE WILL BURN U IN HELL FOREVER?

..just to make the point clear.

What sources?? I have already given you, it is from the Bible as referenced above and that is common knowledge.

ITS AS SIMPLE AS THIS:- HOW CAN U STATE GOD IS OMNIBENEVOLENT WHEN HE WILL BURN U IN HELL FOREVER?

I did not personally state God is benevolent.
I stated, theists claimed their God is benevolent, sources cited above.

I have also explained why theists has to claim their God is benevolent, otherwise they will end up with deep shit that their God could possibly be evil.
If you don't claim your God is omnibenevolent, then your God could be a fucked-up God.

As for God will burn non-theists in hell, theists will give all sort of excuses - God is still omnibenevolent but has his ways which GOD only knows.

All the above mess of irrationality and contradictions in theism and theists twisting and 'eel_ling' their way out is because there is no real GOD in the first place.

The emergence of the idea of God [an illusion] arise as a very effective consonance [security blanket] for theists to deal with the inherent unavoidable existential dissonance.
When their irrationality is question they get angry and some will even resort to kill those who question their irrational beliefs.

Those who deal with the existence dissonance directly and rationally do not have to encounter all the above mess of irrationality and contradictions.

[attofishpi]

You are so ignorant and also inefficient.
It took me 10 seconds to get this;

No, actually since your last post, whilst I waited 4 U to address ME (UNLESS you are a really really slow at the keyboard) took you 15 MINS.

• 100 Bible Verses about Omnibenevolence - OpenBible.info
  https://www.openbible.info/topics/omnibenevolence

There are many other Christian sites which support the above point re their God is omnibenevolent.

U do under_stand philosophy right? - U keep going on that U R rational etc etc..

SO.

Rather than pointing me to STUPID "CHRISTIAN" C**NTS and ALL their PIGSHIT - THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CHRIST STATED.

...er DO me a favour - and CITE your source.

If your God is not omnibenevolent, then your God is omni-evil??
or If your God is totally indifferent to benevolence, then such a God is a useless God to theists, i.e. having the possibility of cruelty and evil and be condemned.

TRULY it makes me larf when people state 'YOUR' God. U simple fuk.


ITS AS SIMPLE AS THIS:- HOW CAN U STATE GOD IS OMNIBENEVOLENT WHEN HE WILL BURN U IN HELL FOREVER?

..just to make the point clear.

What sources?? I have already given you, it is from the Bible as referenced above and that is common knowledge.

..again, U R on a philosophy forum - stating the mainstay of the premise of your argument without CITING the source(s) is rather pathetic.

(COMMON ""knowledge"" is NOT knowledge)

ITS AS SIMPLE AS THIS:- HOW CAN U STATE GOD IS OMNIBENEVOLENT WHEN HE WILL BURN U IN HELL FOREVER?

I did not personally state God is benevolent.
I stated, theists claimed their God is benevolent, sources cited above.

I have also explained why theists has to claim their God is benevolent, otherwise they will end up with deep shit that their God could possibly be evil.
If you don't claim your God is omnibenevolent, then your God could be a fucked-up God.

As for God will burn non-theists in hell, theists will give all sort of excuses - God is still omnibenevolent but has his ways which GOD only knows.

..actually - you have been insisting GOD is OMNI- BENEVOLENT from the outset of your "argument"

..U haven't got the credentials for arguing on PHILOSOPHY forum. ..so best U FO.

I KILLED YOUR 4 POINT """ARGUMENT"" against theism. (even though I know the most of those theists R as dumb as or moreso than U)


IF U CANNOT DEAL WITH SOMEONE THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOU OWN PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT SOMETHING (in this case Christianity) THEN GET THE FUCK OUT OF A PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

IF U WANT TO ADDRESS ME.

Then dispense of your presumptions. ..and take me on at point zero.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, actually since your last post, whilst I waited 4 U to address ME (UNLESS you are a really really slow at the keyboard) took you 15 MINS.




U do under_stand philosophy right? - U keep going on that U R rational etc etc..

SO.

Rather than pointing me to STUPID "CHRISTIAN" C**NTS and ALL their PIGSHIT - THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT CHRIST STATED.

...er DO me a favour - and CITE your source.




TRULY it makes me larf when people state 'YOUR' God. U simple fuk.


ITS AS SIMPLE AS THIS:- HOW CAN U STATE GOD IS OMNIBENEVOLENT WHEN HE WILL BURN U IN HELL FOREVER?

..just to make the point clear.

What sources?? I have already given you, it is from the Bible as referenced above and that is common knowledge.

..again, U R on a philosophy forum - stating the mainstay of the premise of your argument without CITING the source(s) is rather pathetic.

(COMMON ""knowledge"" is NOT knowledge)

ITS AS SIMPLE AS THIS:- HOW CAN U STATE GOD IS OMNIBENEVOLENT WHEN HE WILL BURN U IN HELL FOREVER?

I did not personally state God is benevolent.
I stated, theists claimed their God is benevolent, sources cited above.

I have also explained why theists has to claim their God is benevolent, otherwise they will end up with deep shit that their God could possibly be evil.
If you don't claim your God is omnibenevolent, then your God could be a fucked-up God.

As for God will burn non-theists in hell, theists will give all sort of excuses - God is still omnibenevolent but has his ways which GOD only knows.

..actually - you have been insisting GOD is OMNI- BENEVOLENT from the outset of your "argument"

..U haven't got the credentials for arguing on PHILOSOPHY forum. ..so best U FO.

I KILLED YOUR 4 POINT """ARGUMENT"" against theism. (even though I know the most of those theists R as dumb as or moreso than U)


IF U CANNOT DEAL WITH SOMEONE THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOU OWN PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT SOMETHING (in this case Christianity) THEN GET THE FUCK OUT OF A PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

IF U WANT TO ADDRESS ME.

Then dispense of your presumptions. ..and take me on at point zero.

All your noises above is toothless.

Point is;
If you don't claim your God is omnibenevolent, then your God could be a fucked-up God.

[attofishpi]

What sources?? I have already given you, it is from the Bible as referenced above and that is common knowledge.

..again, U R on a philosophy forum - stating the mainstay of the premise of your argument without CITING the source(s) is rather pathetic.

(COMMON ""knowledge"" is NOT knowledge)

I did not personally state God is benevolent.
I stated, theists claimed their God is benevolent, sources cited above.

I have also explained why theists has to claim their God is benevolent, otherwise they will end up with deep shit that their God could possibly be evil.
If you don't claim your God is omnibenevolent, then your God could be a fucked-up God.

As for God will burn non-theists in hell, theists will give all sort of excuses - God is still omnibenevolent but has his ways which GOD only knows.

..actually - you have been insisting GOD is OMNI- BENEVOLENT from the outset of your "argument"

..U haven't got the credentials for arguing on PHILOSOPHY forum. ..so best U FO.

I KILLED YOUR 4 POINT """ARGUMENT"" against theism. (even though I know the most of those theists R as dumb as or moreso than U)


IF U CANNOT DEAL WITH SOMEONE THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO YOU OWN PRESUMPTIONS ABOUT SOMETHING (in this case Christianity) THEN GET THE FUCK OUT OF A PHILOSOPHY FORUM.

IF U WANT TO ADDRESS ME.

Then dispense of your presumptions. ..and take me on at point zero.

All your noises above is toothless.

Point is;
If you don't claim your God is omnibenevolent, then your God could be a fucked-up God.

..ergo, OR U don't KNOW GOD.

LMFAO (benevolent? - the SHIT that comes out my arse has more to do with BENEVOLENCE than God)

[DPMartin]

nope you got it incorrect, what God created is one thing, but what in the creation is good or evil is according to who in your argument?

Good question, DPM.

These people who claim God "invented evil" never pause to say what gives them the authority to pronounce that something is "good" or "evil." They just assume that the visceral reaction they are having to that phenomenon is identical to the one everybody else must be having, and that the one that everybody is having is justified.

But we don't know that it is. If everybody in the world were identically afraid of the dark, that wouldn't mean that darkness was objectively bad. Or if everybody in the world believed women are inferior in value to men (which most of the world historically has believed and still does believe), would their mere belief in that make it objectively true?

So AV owes you an account of how (s)he knows that "evil" is a thing. And if it's not an objective thing, then the accusation against God does away like mist in the wind.

well without getting into huge discussion about it, man is the only justifier of man's own judgement of what is good and evil. God does not justify man's judgement of what is good and evil.

my point is, how can that be so when the obvious evidence shows man is not good, therefore man isn't the judge of what is good, because he doesn't know good, though he sees himself in the place to judge such.

[Immanuel Can]

God does not justify man's judgement of what is good and evil.

But how can man possibly be the "justifier" of his own judgments? For both he and they are contingent entities...changeable, transient, and failing. He "justifies" a judgment, in that sense, only so long as he holds it, which may be much shorter than his own lifespan, since his opinion changes; and he "justifies" it only to himself, not to others, since they are perfectly free to hold opposite judgments than he holds.

my point is, how can that be so when the obvious evidence shows man is not good, therefore man isn't the judge of what is good, because he doesn't know good, though he sees himself in the place to judge such.

But if the man (or men) justifies his own judgments, then he is never "evil." For what man is not "right, in his own eyes"? What man does that which he has already judged as "evil"?

Perhaps there are a few so desperately wicked...people like Hitler, or Richard Ramirez, perhaps. But I think there are certainly far more who see the "evils" that they do as "justified" under their circumstances.

I've often noted that there are an extraordinary number of people in jails for things they insist "do not make them bad persons."

[DPMartin]

But how can man possibly be the "justifier" of his own judgments? For both he and they are contingent entities...changeable, transient, and failing. He "justifies" a judgment, in that sense, only so long as he holds it, which may be much shorter than his own lifespan, since his opinion changes; and he "justifies" it only to himself, not to others, since they are perfectly free to hold opposite judgments than he holds.


But if the man (or men) justifies his own judgments, then he is never "evil." For what man is not "right, in his own eyes"? What man does that which he has already judged as "evil"?

Perhaps there are a few so desperately wicked...people like Hitler, or Richard Ramirez, perhaps. But I think there are certainly far more who see the "evils" that they do as "justified" under their circumstances.

I've often noted that there are an extraordinary number of people in jails for things they insist "do not make them bad persons."

this is where it can be tricky, God is the justifier of His own judgements, correct? so who's judgements should one live by? also men do seek to justify themselves to others all the time, for a multitude of reasons. everyone justifies their own actions in their hearts therefore where does the heart look to for what it agrees as justified?

its important where the heart is, for man cannot escape his own heart.

[Immanuel Can]

God is the justifier of His own judgements, correct?

Not quite the wording I would choose. I would say, "All objective moral judgments are grounded in the character of God," rather than "Man grounds his own moral judgments."

so who's judgements should one live by?

Well, that's easy. One should live by the moral judgments that conform to the character of God.

also men do seek to justify themselves to others all the time, for a multitude of reasons. everyone justifies their own actions in their hearts therefore where does the heart look to for what it agrees as justified?

To the character of God. A man's judgments are only as good as they are conformable to the character of God. If they are reflective of the divine character, they're good; if they are a denial of the divine character, they are evil. For mankind was created to reflect the glory of God. When he does not, then what he does is evil, no matter what his own assessment of it is.

Some say the inscription over the gates of Hell is, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here." But I think it could be updated to the words of Frank Sinatra: "I Did It My Way."

its important where the heart is, for man cannot escape his own heart.

That's very true.

That's the problem. Hence the necessity for God to act, since we cannot.

[DPMartin]

God is the justifier of His own judgements, correct?

Not quite the wording I would choose. I would say, "All objective moral judgments are grounded in the character of God," rather than "Man grounds his own moral judgments."

so who's judgements should one live by?

Well, that's easy. One should live by the moral judgments that conform to the character of God.

also men do seek to justify themselves to others all the time, for a multitude of reasons. everyone justifies their own actions in their hearts therefore where does the heart look to for what it agrees as justified?

To the character of God. A man's judgments are only as good as they are conformable to the character of God. If they are reflective of the divine character, they're good; if they are a denial of the divine character, they are evil. For mankind was created to reflect the glory of God. When he does not, then what he does is evil, no matter what his own assessment of it is.

Some say the inscription over the gates of Hell is, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here." But I think it could be updated to the words of Frank Sinatra: "I Did It My Way."

its important where the heart is, for man cannot escape his own heart.

That's very true.

That's the problem. Hence the necessity for God to act, since we cannot.

just in case it wasn't mentioned I presume we are speaking of the God documented in the OT and NT and in that context it seems the only difference in our discussion is you seem to claim the judgements are of man that conform, but the judgements are of God that man is to execute:

Lev_18:4  Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.

in the same context, man is originally given God's place in the earth to execute His judgements in the earth, therefore, the judgements acceptable to God are His. He is the source of such judgements.

otherwise I agree with your statements here

[Immanuel Can]

just in case it wasn't mentioned I presume we are speaking of the God documented in the OT and NT

Yes. In fact, I think that's the only coherent and truthful conception of God. The rest are just errors about His nature.

and in that context it seems the only difference in our discussion is you seem to claim the judgements are of man that conform, but the judgements are of God that man is to execute:

I'm having trouble interpreting the grammar in this sentence. You write, "you seem to claim the judgments are of man that conform..." And I don't know how is the doer of the verb "execute" in the ensuing phrase either. Can you clear those up for me?

in the same context, man is originally given God's place in the earth to execute His judgements in the earth,

Judgments? Is that the right word? I hardly think so.

I don't think the Bible ever says that's what man is here for. To reflect the image of God, sure. But when the Earth was created, there was no sin, and hence, no "judgments," so that cannot be posited as mankind's primary purpose in being created. There wasn't even, at that time, the Law; that didn't come until Moses. And it is the "judgments" in the Law that the Levitical passage is referring to.

So no, those cannot possibly be mankind's original purposes in being created. He had no "judgments" to make, and no "Levitical Law" to follow.

[Sculptor]

just in case it wasn't mentioned I presume we are speaking of the God documented in the OT and NT

Yes. In fact, I think that's the only coherent and truthful conception of God. The rest are just errors about His nature.

Contradiction.

and in that context it seems the only difference in our discussion is you seem to claim the judgements are of man that conform, but the judgements are of God that man is to execute:

I'm having trouble interpreting the grammar in this sentence. You write, "you seem to claim the judgments are of man that conform..." And I don't know how is the doer of the verb "execute" in the ensuing phrase either. Can you clear those up for me?

in the same context, man is originally given God's place in the earth to execute His judgements in the earth,

Judgments? Is that the right word? I hardly think so.

I don't think the Bible ever says that's what man is here for. To reflect the image of God, sure. But when the Earth was created, there was no sin, and hence, no "judgments," so that cannot be posited as mankind's primary purpose in being created. There wasn't even, at that time, the Law; that didn't come until Moses. And it is the "judgments" in the Law that the Levitical passage is referring to.

So no, those cannot possibly be mankind's original purposes in being created. He had no "judgments" to make, and no "Levitical Law" to follow.

Your problem is that you think free will give you the right to have your own facts.

[DPMartin]

just in case it wasn't mentioned I presume we are speaking of the God documented in the OT and NT

Yes. In fact, I think that's the only coherent and truthful conception of God. The rest are just errors about His nature.

and in that context it seems the only difference in our discussion is you seem to claim the judgements are of man that conform, but the judgements are of God that man is to execute:

I'm having trouble interpreting the grammar in this sentence. You write, "you seem to claim the judgments are of man that conform..." And I don't know how is the doer of the verb "execute" in the ensuing phrase either. Can you clear those up for me?

in the same context, man is originally given God's place in the earth to execute His judgements in the earth,

Judgments? Is that the right word? I hardly think so.

I don't think the Bible ever says that's what man is here for. To reflect the image of God, sure. But when the Earth was created, there was no sin, and hence, no "judgments," so that cannot be posited as mankind's primary purpose in being created. There wasn't even, at that time, the Law; that didn't come until Moses. And it is the "judgments" in the Law that the Levitical passage is referring to.

So no, those cannot possibly be mankind's original purposes in being created. He had no "judgments" to make, and no "Levitical Law" to follow.

it all starts with Adam

Luk 3:38  Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. 

and that relationship is what Jesus (also known as the second Adam) demonstrated and explained, which is what Adam had and died from and we are born into the world without, until born again according to Jesus.

so its been who God choses to reveal Himself to via His Word in His Presence that grants the knowledge and understanding of God judgements, in most cases were not documented until it was documented by the hand of Moses to the establishment of a nation of people known as the children of Israel.

its would be stupid to think that God made man to do what man thinks, according to man.

[Immanuel Can]

its would be stupid to think that God made man to do what man thinks, according to man.

Well, we certainly agree on that. Yet it's surprising how many people think that's how it is.

I wonder, though, if you can help me understand what you mean by the word "judgments." I ask because the word itself is used for somewhat different things. To "judge" can mean to sit like a court official and pronounce final justice. But to "judge" can also mean simply "to recognize the difference between things," as when one "judges" ripe fruit from unripe.

And "judgments" can be summary or provisional, in a variety of contexts. They can even refer to a particular legal code. Or it can be used in an active way, as "to pass judgments," but without specific contents in view. There's a lot of flexibility among those meanings.

So when you say that man was created for "judgments," what exact meaning do you understand as a synonym for that?

[DPMartin]

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=491816 time=1611339191 user_id=9431

its would be stupid to think that God made man to do what man thinks, according to man.

Well, we certainly agree on that. Yet it's surprising how many people think that's how it is.

I wonder, though, if you can help me understand what you mean by the word "judgments." I ask because the word itself is used for somewhat different things. To "judge" can mean to sit like a court official and pronounce final justice. But to "judge" can also mean simply "to recognize the difference between things," as when one "judges" ripe fruit from unripe.

And "judgments" can be summary or provisional, in a variety of contexts. They can even refer to a particular legal code. Or it can be used in an active way, as "to pass judgments," but without specific contents in view. There's a lot of flexibility among those meanings.

So when you say that man was created for "judgments," what exact meaning do you understand as a synonym for that?
[/quote]

do you teach children you care about to use good or bad judgement in their lives?

in the case of A&E don't eat of tree or you will die, is that good or bad judgement to go by. and that judgement was of God for them in the Life He gave them to live. in this it shows that man is made the execute God's Judgments (which is Life by the way)and any other is death to the Life they received of God because its not God's Judgement that is Life.